[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 21176-21181]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      TRAVEL PROMOTION ACT OF 2009

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 1023, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1023) to establish a nonprofit corporation to 
     communicate United States entry policies and otherwise 
     promote leisure, business, and scholarly travel to the United 
     States.

  Pending:

       Reid (for Dorgan/Rockefeller) amendment No. 1347, of a 
     perfecting nature.
       Reid amendment No. 1348 (to amendment No. 1347), to change 
     the enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 1349 (to the language proposed to be 
     stricken by amendment No. 1347), to change the enactment 
     date.
       Reid amendment No. 1350 (to amendment No. 1349), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this legislation is now in the 30 hours 
postcloture period. We had a cloture vote late yesterday afternoon, and 
I believe the 30 hours postcloture will expire sometime later this 
afternoon, at 4 o'clock or 4:30 or so.
  Let me again explain what we are trying to do in this legislation. 
This is reasonably simple. In all of the partisan dust that is created 
in this country, I think this is one of the few pieces of legislation 
that has broad bipartisan support. We have, I believe, 53 cosponsors 
for this bill--Republicans and Democrats--and the proposition is very 
simple.
  First of all, we have lost a lot of jobs in this country. We are in 
the deepest recession since the Great Depression, and a whole lot of 
folks have lost their jobs. This is a bill to try to create more jobs. 
But it is a bill that especially addresses a problem that has been 
created in the last 8 or 9 years.
  Since the year 2000, here are a couple numbers. Since the year 2000, 
there are

[[Page 21177]]

56 million more people living on this planet who are taking 
international trips. Let me say that again. This is a big planet with 
billions of people living on it. By the way, half of them have never 
made a phone call. Half live on less than $2 a day. But on this big 
planet there are people who travel internationally, and there are 56 
million more international travelers right now than there were 9 years 
ago. But there are 633,000 fewer international travelers visiting the 
United States than visited our country 9 years ago.
  Why is that the case? And why is it important? Well, it is important 
for a number of reasons. It is important because international 
travelers--I am talking about overseas travelers--on average spend 
about $4,500 per person per trip. Their travel supports a lot of jobs 
in the tourism industry. It supports jobs in every State in our 
country. So it is important for that reason--it creates jobs.
  But it is important for another reason as well. When people come here 
from other parts of the world and see America and experience the 
culture and the character of our country, they leave, almost 
inevitably, with a very positive impression of this country of ours.
  So for two reasons this is important. We have fewer international 
visitors--633,000 fewer--per year than we had 9 years ago, even at a 
time when 56 million more people are traveling around the globe for 
overseas visits.
  I described yesterday what other countries are doing. Other countries 
are saying: We understand that international travel and tourism creates 
jobs. So other countries are reaching out with promotions. Japan, 
Italy, France, India, England--you name it--they all have aggressive 
promotions around the world, to say: Come to our country. Come see the 
Eiffel Tower. See the wonders of France. See the beauty of Ireland. 
Come to India and experience the interesting culture of India. All of 
these countries are doing very aggressive international promotion for 
the international traveler, to say: Come to our country.
  Something happened in the year 2001. Obviously, on 9/11 we had a 
terrorist attack--a devastating terrorist attack. As a result of that, 
our country tightened up on visas. We made it more difficult to come to 
our country. At the same time as we tightened up on visas, those who 
did want to come often had to wait for long periods of time, and they 
waited in long lines in order to get a visa. Then with respect to the 
Iraq war and other policies, people became upset with our country. So 
the result has been a substantial decrease in international travelers 
coming to our country.
  The purpose of this legislation is very simple. It is called the 
Travel Promotion Act of 2009, but it establishes a public sector/
private sector partnership to begin promoting international travel 
again to the United States of America.
  This is one of the few pieces of legislation that actually saves the 
government money. The Congressional Budget Office scores it as a $425 
million in reduction in the Federal budget deficit over the coming 10 
years. So this is not something that expands the deficit. This reduces 
the Federal budget deficit--that's No. 1. No. 2, it is bipartisan. A 
fairly large number of Democrats and Republicans have joined together 
to say: We want to do this. The vote on the cloture motion yesterday 
was 80-19. No. 3, organizations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 
and others have weighed in saying this is very important for us to do. 
Other countries are engaged in this kind of promotion for their 
countries and we need to do it for ours.
  So I, along with my colleagues, have authored this legislation. In 
the previous Congress, as chairman of the subcommittee that deals with 
these tourism issues, I authored the legislation. My colleagues, 
Senator Ensign, Senator Klobuchar, Senator Reid, and many others, 
Republicans and Democrats, have joined in the legislation that would 
create an opportunity for this country to compete internationally for 
international tourism and travel.
  Mr. President, we will, I think, for the next 5 or 6 hours, stand at 
parade rest listening to people talk about what they want to talk about 
on the floor of the Senate, and it is a procedure that is a bit 
Byzantine. Most people would not understand the procedure. On something 
as noncontroversial as this, as widely supported by Republicans and 
Democrats, something that actually reduces the Federal budget deficit 
and extends our ability to create jobs in this country, we got 80 
Senators to vote for cloture, which meant we had to file a cloture 
motion. That meant 2 days intervened because it takes 2 days to have a 
cloture motion ripen. Then we got cloture with 80 votes. Now we stand 
at parade rest until sometime around 4:30 this afternoon because 30 
hours--if the minority insists--30 hours has to expire. At the end of 
30 hours postcloture, then we will, presumably, have a vote on the 
legislation.
  I am pleased to work with my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats. 
This legislation is the right thing to do right now. At a time when 
this is an increasingly smaller planet, an increasingly smaller world 
in which we live, I think it is important for our country to reach out 
to the rest of the world. Doing so is in our self-interest because it 
creates jobs and expands our economy. But it is also in our self-
interest because what we have created in this country is quite 
extraordinary.
  This is not a circumstance where we would promote travel to America 
for one destination. It is travel to America to see all of this great 
country in its grandeur. There is so much to see and experience here, 
and we know from polls that have been done with international travelers 
that when people come to this country and travel here and experience 
what exists in our country and understand the character and the culture 
of our country, they leave with an unbelievably positive attitude about 
the United States. That is an awfully good thing, it seems to me.
  So, again, this is a bipartisan bill that will save the Federal 
Government money; reduce the Federal budget deficit; combine the best 
ideas of Republicans and Democrats; and had 80 votes for cloture. I 
hope we have at least that on final passage. And perhaps we will start 
off this work period of September and October on a pretty positive 
note, stepping forward together to say, Let's do something that 
strengthens our country.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the United States is a very popular tourist 
destination. According to the Department of Commerce, foreign travel 
here reached record highs in the year 2008--an increase of 16 percent 
over the previous record set in 2007. So our tourism industry is 
booming. People from all over the world want to visit our cities and 
see our sights. Almost every State and community has tourism promotion 
programs that are very robust which help to accommodate that desire for 
foreign travelers to come here. So I am a bit baffled by the 
legislation that is pending before us.
  The Tourism Protection Act, in my view, is both unnecessary and the 
wrong approach to attracting visitors from abroad. The bill would 
create yet another government-affiliated office of tourism. Why do we 
need that? The Department of Commerce already has a tourism office and 
private sector businesses and other entities already have the 
demonstrated capability to promote tourism. According to the companies 
and lobbyists who are pushing this bill, they already are. So why spend 
almost $100 million a year for a new and unnecessary Federal entity to 
market and research travel and tourism? Research tourism? What is there 
to research? I wonder if this is one of the reasons why the American 
people have a lot of questions about the capability of their 
representatives here in Washington to do the right thing.
  The bill would impose a new $10 fee on foreign visitors. Now there is 
a way to attract more visitors: Charge them for coming here. Maybe we 
need that research after all. Of course, imposing a new user fee or tax 
on nearly every foreign visitor is hardly a route to promoting new 
tourism. Obviously, we

[[Page 21178]]

should avoid creating impediments to tourism if your first goal is to 
attract more tourists. The tax actually could hinder visits by 
families. For those families who do visit, every dollar they have to 
spend paying the Federal Government is one less dollar they can spend 
on American businesses, on our local communities, on the restaurants 
and shops and hotels and cab rides, and so on. The $10 fee may not 
sound like much, but for a family of five, that is fifty bucks to 
promote tourism.
  We all agree that tourism boosts our economy in numerous ways and is 
vital to our economic recovery. Nobody has to lecture me about tourism. 
My State of Arizona relies a great deal on tourism for our economy, and 
it is a wonderful destination place for folks to visit. I don't think 
we need--the Federal Government--to take another bite out of our 
tourism dollars.
  I am also concerned about the inevitable retaliatory effect of this 
legislation. Senator DeMint wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post on 
Monday and pointed out that the European Union and other governments 
have said that if we impose a tax on foreign visitors, they will follow 
suit and impose a reciprocal tax on American visitors to their 
countries. That is not a very good idea either, is it? Do we want to 
pass legislation that will lead to new travel fees on Americans?
  Instead of creating an additional government tourism office, I think 
we should work to fund the actual Federal responsibilities we have that 
relate to visitors coming to our country such as upgrading or adding 
infrastructure at our ports and making visa service improvements. There 
are always improvements we can make in this regard. The easier we can 
make it for tourists to come here, the more likely they will come.
  So if we want to spend $100 million, for example, to make it more 
attractive for tourists to enter the United States, there are plenty of 
ways to do it that relate directly to our responsibilities. We don't 
have to create another redundant office of tourism and charge the 
tourists to fund it.
  At a time when much of the world is experiencing economic hardship, 
we should support policies that make tourism in the United States more 
attractive, not more costly. That is why I believe this legislation is 
misguided, unnecessary and, in the end, harmful.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, perhaps while my colleague is on the 
floor, I think it would be useful to at least discuss a couple of 
things that are apparently in disagreement.
  The issue of a $10 fee that could be used in a public and private 
sector partnership, again, supported by the Chamber of Commerce and all 
of the organizations that want to support this country as a destination 
for international tourism--let me put on the board a chart that shows 
the fees our U.S. travelers currently pay to visit the visa waiver 
countries. They charge us fees. We are talking about a $10 fee to 
people from these countries--$10. Here is what we are charged if we go 
to France: a $51 fee, Americans going to France. We don't propose that 
here. We can see that in Spain, $14; the Czech Republic, $27. They are 
going to retaliate? They already charge the American traveler a fee 
when we come and go, and we are talking about a $10 fee that would 
allow our country to promote our country as a destination just as their 
countries are doing. We are not even in the competition.
  The thing I wanted to ask my colleague about is, he talked about 
international tourism. I wonder if we disagree on this: There is a very 
big difference between the classification of international tourists and 
overseas travelers, travelers from foreign countries abroad. 
International tourists include Mexico and Canada--and by the way, the 
research that the Senator seems to diminish tells us a lot about this 
information. On average, a visitor from Mexico and Canada to the United 
States on a trip is going to spend around $900. On average, a visitor 
to this country from a foreign country overseas is going to spend about 
$4,500, a pretty big difference in terms of visiting Arizona or North 
Dakota and spending that kind of money.
  But I wonder if we have a disagreement with this: All of the data 
tells us that in the last 9 years, global travel has increased by 56 
million more people moving around the globe doing international tourism 
travel, and that during the same time, the United States has actually 
had 633,000 fewer overseas visitors than 9 years ago. Do we disagree on 
that? Because my colleague from Arizona seemed to suggest that 
everything is at a record high. That is not the case. It is not the 
case. Overseas travel from people coming to this country is down. It is 
down at a time when overseas travel is booming all around the rest of 
the world and we have over a half a million people a year fewer coming 
to this country. Do we disagree on that?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I say to my colleague two things. First, the 
statistics I quoted were for the last 2 years, 2007 and 2008. I don't 
have the statistics for I believe he said 10 years ago.
  Mr. DORGAN. I am also talking about a different classification. I am 
talking about overseas travel. The statistics my colleague quoted I 
believe are statistics that include Mexican and Canadian travel to the 
United States. Obviously those are contiguous countries. We have a lot 
of people moving in and out. But I am talking about overseas travel. 
The official numbers on overseas travel I believe are that we have 
633,000 fewer people coming to this country from overseas for tourism 
than existed 9 years ago. Do you subscribe to that?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I say to my colleague I was not specifically 
referring to Canada and Mexico. I didn't even mention those two 
countries by name. I would be happy to get the source of the 
statistical information I presented, provide that to my colleague so we 
can make a comparison.
  The other point I would make with regard to fees, I am not doing 
anything except reporting the news, which is that countries abroad say 
if we propose this fee, they will reciprocate. The fact that some of 
them already impose a fee may mean they are going to increase their 
fee, and that is obviously not a good thing. It seems to me any fee 
that any of the countries imposes gets us into a little bit of a 
bidding war. Are we going to try to attract tourism from other 
countries by raising fees on the tourists who come here? I don't think 
that is a very good policy. If those countries want to have a fee, I 
don't think it is very smart for them to have it, but I can't affect 
that, except by trying to ensure that they don't have a reason to 
reciprocate against the United States if we impose a fee.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I would simply say, it is not a matter of 
reciprocating against us; they already impose these fees on American 
travelers. Our determination to impose a minor fee--$10 for an 
international traveler from a visa waiver country when they use the 
ESTA system once every two years, not every visit--it seems to me to 
suggest is much less than other countries charge US travelers. And the 
Senator described an op-ed piece by my colleague Senator DeMint which, 
in my judgment, is full of misinformation, full of it.
  By the way, I am sending the Washington Post a response to it today. 
But, look: International travel. My friend from Arizona talked about 
research. The Commerce Department research shows that in the first 
quarter of this year, there was a 10-percent decrease in international 
travel to this country. That is the official data from the Commerce 
Department. So it is not the case that tourism is at a record high, 
that we are setting all of these records; and it is the case, in my 
judgment, based on empirical data and research, that we have far fewer 
overseas visitors coming to this country now than we did 9 years ago.
  I am telling my colleague something that relates, in my judgment, to 
substantial lost opportunity for a number of reasons: jobs we should 
have that we don't have; and second, an awfully good impression about 
this great country of ours by people who come here and visit it.
  I think my colleague will agree with me that post 9/11, there were a 
lot of

[[Page 21179]]

things done that suggested to people around the world that it is going 
to take you a while to get to the United States because you are not 
very welcome there. It is going to take a long time to get a visa. You 
are going to wait a long time.
  By the way, I have something I wanted to show my colleague. This is 
all 2008 material, by the way, but there were headlines such as these: 
The Sydney Morning Herald, Sydney, Australia: ``Coming to America Isn't 
Easy.'' The Guardian, United Kingdom: ``America: More Hassle Than It's 
Worth?'' The Sunday Times in London: ``Travel to America? No Thanks.''
  There is something missing here that we ought to be concerned about 
because my friend from Arizona represents a State that has a lot of 
tourism and a lot of jobs related to tourism. Virtually every State in 
this country will benefit from being able to promote America's grandeur 
and opportunity for people to come here and travel here, and we are not 
even in the game.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, if I could interrupt my colleague for 1 
moment to make a quick point and then I will have to leave the floor. I 
think the headlines my colleague reads are an important part of this 
debate. That is why I made the point that if we are going to 
concentrate on trying to attract more people to our shores, there are a 
lot of things we can do to take the hassle out of traveling that do 
directly relate to our responsibilities at our ports of entry, our visa 
system, and other things we can do to take that hassle out of traveling 
to the United States that are our responsibility and that we should do. 
I would put those responsibilities ahead of fancy brochures and 
advertising campaigns to try to tell people it could be nice to come to 
the United States when there are other ways we can make our shores more 
attractive to them.
  So as I promised my colleague, I will get the source of the 
information I quoted with regard to the statistical information 
demonstrating more travel in the last few years and then we can have a 
further conversation about that.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I respect my colleague's views. I would 
only say this: The evidence is clear and it is not debatable that fewer 
people are coming to this country from overseas than did 9 years ago. 
In my judgment, we ought to be concerned about that and do something 
about that by encouraging them. Yes, let's deal with the wait times on 
visas. We are working on that and we have made some progress on that. 
But it is also the case that if while India and France and Japan and 
China and others are engaged in very substantial promotional campaigns 
that say ``come to our country; come and see what we have,'' and if 
while they are doing that with aggressive promotion we are sitting back 
and saying, ``Well, we are not going to say anything much; we don't 
have a promotional campaign encouraging people to come to America,'' in 
my judgment, we lose that opportunity.
  Advertising works; I don't care whether it is a television commercial 
or a promotion. All I am saying is don't diminish that, because 
promoting travel to the United States can work, but deciding we are not 
going to promote anything I know does not work. In fact, in this past 
decade, we have been in a circumstance where after 9/11, it was pretty 
clear that we were going to make it much more difficult for people to 
come to this country, and did. Then we went through a period of the 
Iraq war and other things when a lot of people were pretty upset, so we 
saw a very substantial reduction in the amount of tourism coming to 
this country from overseas.
  Again, I am knowledgeable about the op-ed piece that was written in 
the Washington Post described by my colleague.
  I am just telling you that there will be a response to that because 
much of that had no basis in fact. So all I hope is that the 80 
Senators who supported this yesterday will continue to support the 
notion of creating jobs in this country, on a bipartisan basis, with a 
piece of legislation that actually reduces the Federal budget deficit. 
What a novel thing that is.
  Again, I have respect for those who disagree, but I don't want there 
to be disagreement about the facts. We do research in the Commerce 
Department on who is coming to our country and how many. That is 
valuable research. Let's take advantage of that and understand what it 
says.
  Overseas travel across the planet is up, up, up, way up, and to this 
country, it is down. There is something wrong with that, something 
unhealthy about it. We can change that. That is what this legislation 
is. It is an attempt to change it.
  Let me quote Mark Twain. I probably should do this every time I speak 
on the floor because I am always trying to sell something. In this 
case, it is bipartisan legislation that I think advantages this 
country.
  I will say this again. Mark Twain was asked once if he would engage 
in a debate being scheduled. He answered, ``Yes, as long as I can take 
the negative side.'' When asked why would he take the negative side 
when he didn't even know the subject matter, he said, ``The negative 
side will take no preparation.''
  I understand it is easier to write a big-old op-ed whacking away at 
things than it is to construct something that has merit and will 
advance this country's interests. I believe this bill has merit, and so 
do the 79 other Senators who supported this legislation yesterday. 
Later this afternoon, I look forward to passing this legislation 
through the full Senate.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BURRIS. Mr. President, I wish to speak on the issue of travel 
that is before the Senate this morning.
  We live in a world divided. International tension, mistrust, even 
wars too often separate nation from nation. But every 2 years, 10,000 
athletes from more than 200 countries come together to celebrate the 
human spirit. They meet in competition, arriving on the world stage 
from all five inhabited continents.
  Each of these five continents is represented by a single color 
circle, a ring entwined with four others to form the familiar symbol 
worn by every Olympic athlete.
  The Olympic and Paralympic Games are a powerful force for world unity 
and a boon to any city that hosts them. In 2016, the summer games will 
bring millions of dollars and international spotlight to one of four 
world cities. Selected by the U.S. Olympic Committee from a broad field 
of candidate cities, Chicago is one of only four finalists for the 2016 
Olympics, along with Madrid, Rio de Janeiro, and Tokyo. The 
International Olympic Committee will make their final selection in 
October. That is in the coming month. We must work hard to bring the 
Olympics back to the United States of America.
  There is no greater honor than representing your country on the world 
stage. I am convinced there is no greater world city than Chicago.
  As President Obama and I both can attest, Chicago is a diverse and 
inclusive city. Situated on the banks of beautiful Lake Michigan, it is 
the jewel of the Midwest. Chicago has always been a global leader in 
culture, architecture, commerce, sports, and even cuisine, if you like 
a good meal.
  The Olympic spirit is alive and well in Chicago. The Chicago 2016 
Committee recognized the importance of the games and renewing old 
friendships around the world, as well as establishing new ones. This 
ideal--and the value of ``friendship through sport''--is at the heart 
of the city's Olympic bid. It is a beautiful city, and I am proud to 
call it home. It showcases much of what makes this country so great. 
That is why it is an ideal site for the Olympic and Paralympic Games.
  For athletes, world-class training facilities and event locations 
would be very close together, allowing for convenience and ease.

[[Page 21180]]

  For visitors, outstanding public transportation and modern 
infrastructure would make all events readily accessible and easy to 
attend.
  For residents of the city and people across the United States, 
Chicago would shine on the world stage and millions of dollars would 
pour in from across the globe.
  Especially if we pass S. 1023, promoting travel to the United States 
and relaying better information to visitors, Chicago will be the clear 
choice of the International Olympic Committee in October.
  This important legislation, known as the Travel Promotion Act of 
2009, would create a not-for-profit corporation, as well as a 
government Office of Travel Promotion. These organizations would work 
together to encourage business, leisure, and scholarly travel to the 
United States, restoring important components of our struggling 
economy.
  Travel and tourism, which generates as much as $1.3 trillion in the 
United States every year, have been on the decline since 2001, although 
those same industries have grown in many other countries. We must act 
swiftly to protect the 8.3 million American jobs that are directly 
related to travel and tourism. This means welcoming more overseas 
visitors each year--visitors who already pour $142 billion into the 
United States on an annual basis. An increase in international tourism 
would increase the profile of Chicago's Olympic bid.
  The 2016 Olympics, in turn, would generate even more international 
tourism in Illinois and across the country. S. 1023 would help this 
massive influx of visitors travel to the United States with ease. This 
would create jobs, increase tax revenue, and build stronger 
relationships across the globe.
  There are few international spectacles as singular and as inspiring 
as the Olympic and Paralympic Games. There are very few of those. A 
force for unity in a world divided, these competitions have the power 
to bring us together as one people, celebrating the human spirit with 
one voice.
  I urge my colleagues to join Senator Dorgan and Senator Ensign in 
supporting S. 1023. I thank Leader Reid for his leadership on this 
important issue.
  This legislation would help to bring visitors from all over the world 
to the United States, and it would help bring the 2016 Olympic games to 
Chicago, IL.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the bill 
Senator Dorgan and I have sponsored, the Travel Promotion Act of 2009, 
an important piece of legislation to create jobs in the United States.
  My home State of Nevada is No. 2 now in unemployment. Clark County, 
which is where Las Vegas is located, has one of the highest 
unemployment rates of any county in the United States, over 14 percent 
now.
  Jobs are something we desperately need in my home State of Nevada and 
obviously across the United States. Tourism, when you package it all 
together, is the No. 1 industry in the United States. We are one of the 
countries in the world that does not sell itself to the rest of the 
world for people to come. It seems to make sense to me that if a 
company advertises to bring people in, if convention authorities around 
this country advertise for people to come in, it would make sense for 
the United States of America, as a country, to advertise to bring 
people to the United States. As a benefit to that, everywhere in the 
United States can benefit.
  If we are advertising to come see Yosemite or the Grand Canyon or the 
incredible beaches we have on our east and west coasts, or the 
incredible changes we see in the Northeast, or places such as Lake 
Tahoe in my home State that we share with California, or Hawaii or the 
vastness of Alaska, wherever we are advertising, the incredible cities 
we have such as New York, Las Vegas, with culture, cuisine, and 
entertainment, or the history we have in Washington, DC, or the 
fabulous places in cities such as Chicago, when we advertise those 
cities, if somebody comes from overseas to visit the United States, 
there are many other places they will visit along the way within the 
United States. It will not be just one location where foreign travelers 
will come here to visit. There will be a ripple effect.
  For instance, if you are visiting the Grand Canyon, my home city of 
Las Vegas is the gateway to the Grand Canyon. Even though it is located 
in Arizona, most people go through the Grand Canyon to go to Las Vegas. 
If you go to Yosemite, you can go through San Francisco and the whole 
wine country and take a trip up through there.
  The one thing we know about overseas travelers is when they come to 
the United States, they spend about $4,500. Mr. President, $4,500 is a 
lot of money to kick into our economy. That money creates jobs. Those 
jobs that are created have a ripple effect with other jobs being 
created. Somebody who is employed in the tourism industry, whether it 
is a theme park, a restaurant, or a hotel, has to buy other products. 
They have to visit the dentist. A lot of them have animals and visit 
their local veterinarians. They buy houses which supports the 
construction industry. There are ripple effects. So when we are 
creating a job in the tourism industry, we are creating other jobs 
outside the tourism industry.
  The nice thing about the Travel Promotion Act Senator Dorgan and I 
have proposed is that this bill will create jobs without adding to the 
deficit. In fact, it will raise money for the Treasury. It will 
actually have a positive effect on the deficit. Of the concerns I heard 
when I was home over August, that is one of the biggest concerns people 
have--the amount of government spending.
  The way we do this is two things are taken into account. Right now 
countries that have a visa waiver program, we will charge those 
visitors, instead of $131 that it takes on average to have a visa, we 
are only going to charge them $10. But that $10 fee will go into paying 
for this Travel Promotion Act for us to be able to advertize. That 
money will be matched by the private sector. This will be run by the 
private sector, not by the government. So we will have experts who 
understand marketing who will be able to sell our country.
  Mr. President, this is a job-producing bill. It is going to be 
something that benefits all across America, and it is going to do it 
without hurting the deficit. It is exactly the kind of legislation we 
need right now. Oh, by the way, Americans are calling for us to be 
bipartisan, and this is a bipartisan bill.
  Senator Dorgan and I and many other people have worked on this 
legislation. I thank the majority leader, Senator Reid, from my home 
State, for bringing this legislation to the floor and really pushing 
for it. Obviously, it is important to our State because we have a 
tourism-driven economy in our State, but it is important to the entire 
country. It is not just a Nevada-specific bill; this is important to 
the entire country.
  I have a few charts here to show some of what we have seen from other 
countries.
  After 9/11, we made some changes in our immigration laws and things 
like that, and these are some of the headlines from around the world. 
This one says: ``Coming to America isn't easy.'' Another one: 
``America--more hassle than it's worth?'' In London: ``Travel to 
America? No thanks.'' There is a perception out there that folks aren't 
welcome from overseas ever since 9/11. Part of the money that is going 
to be spent in this bill is going to say that America has the welcome 
mat out. We want folks to come and experience America. We want not only 
their tourist dollars, but we want them to come to experience America 
because we know from studies that anyone who comes to America has a 
more positive view of America, and America needs

[[Page 21181]]

friends in the world today. We need more people thinking good things 
about America instead of bad things. Instead of those who want to 
create harm, we want to create good will, and the more visitors we get 
coming to the United States, the more good will we can create in the 
world.
  What this next chart shows is that there have been 58 million new 
visitors--international or overseas travelers. Unfortunately, we 
haven't gotten our share of those since the year 2000. That means there 
was $182 billion in lost visitor spending and almost $30 billion in tax 
revenues for the United States. That is not local tax revenue, that is 
just Federal tax revenues. Almost 250,000 fewer jobs have been created 
because we lost these visitors. So there is a travel gap between 2001 
and 2008. This is the actual arrivals. This is what would have happened 
if we could have captured a small percentage of the new international 
travelers who are out there.
  Some have argued that the European Union will counter if we put a fee 
on travelers coming to the United States, that they will put a fee on 
folks going to their countries. Well, guess what, they already have 
those fees, as a matter of fact, everything from the Czech Republic 
charging $27, to Denmark, $61, up to the UK charging $100.
  By the way, this is the amount of money they spend on advertising in 
their countries--anywhere from $8 million to $89 million--and they get 
a return on their investment. They get a return because they know if 
they advertise folks will actually come.
  Folks have talked about this being a cost to the government. There is 
no cost to this bill. It actually raises money. It actually is not a 
cost to the taxpayer. There is $425 million in deficit reduction over 
the next 10 years, with as much as $4 billion minimum in new economic 
stimulus per year. Next, there is $321 million in new Federal tax 
revenue per year and about 40,000 new U.S. jobs in the first year 
alone. Those are jobs we can definitely use in the United States.
  This chart shows the return on investment. Entry/departure fee from 
Spain, $14. They spent $120 million in 2005. They had an increase in 
international arrivals by 20 percent going into their country. The UK 
spent $90 million and had an increase of 26 percent. You can see down 
the line that there is a return on investment. That is what we are 
saying here in using a public-private partnership. Let's have a return. 
Let's actually attract people to the United States.
  I would make the argument that the United States has more incredible 
places to see than any other country in the world. We have a great 
product to sell, we just have to sell it. We actually have to tell 
people why to come to the United States, show them the incredible 
places.
  These are just a few of the ads we have seen around the world.
  This is one from India. ``One special reason to visit India in 
2009,'' it says. ``Any time is a good time to visit the Land of Taj, 
but there is no time like now.''
  This is one of the many from Australia. I think all of us have seen 
ads about Australia. ``Arrived with a thousand things on our minds; 
departed without a care in the world.'' Another from Australia which 
obviously features the great diving they have. Just the visual image 
makes you say: I think I would like to go there. I think I would like 
to experience that on my next vacation.
  This is Ireland, a nice simple map of Ireland talking about all the 
various things they have, from golf and the St. Patrick's center to 
other places to visit in Ireland. It gives a nice visual image.
  Well, there are not only brochures but television advertising, the 
Internet, and all kinds of ways to get into a person's mind about why 
they would want to come and visit someplace, and all we are saying is 
we need to do this for the United States. There are so many incredible 
places we have here to visit that selling is not going to be the 
problem, it is just going to be making the effort.
  So, Mr. President, I believe this is legislation that is worth doing. 
Some folks have come down here to say we don't need to do this because 
we already have a lot of travelers coming to the United States as it 
is. International travel to the United States, they say, is up. Well, 
the problem is, when you measure international travel coming from 
Mexico and Canada, that may be up, but they only spend about $900 each 
visit when they come here. Overseas travelers spend about $4,500 each 
visit when they come here, and that travel is down in the United 
States. It is down significantly compared to the rest of the world. So 
this is legislation that we need to go after those overseas travelers 
who have money to spend. This is something that can benefit States all 
across America. It will benefit the Federal Treasury, and it will 
create jobs.
  There are a lot of good things about this legislation, and I think 
that is why you will see a good, strong bipartisan vote when the final 
vote tally is taken about 4:30 today.
  So I would encourage people to take a good, hard look at this. At a 
time when we need jobs--jobs, jobs, jobs--this is a bill that can help 
deliver some of those jobs.

                          ____________________